KALAPALA NARENDRA BABU Vs. KALAPALA CHENNAKRISHNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in I.A. No. 556 of 2019 in O.S. No. 312 of 2013, on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the application filed by the 2nd respondent/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the revision petitioner/proposed party as 2nd defendant in the suit, was allowed, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said application show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 50 years. It is stated that an extent 125 sq. yards was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed 16.06.1958 and also another extent of 130 sq. yards covered by the plaint schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 17.08.1967. It is further stated that the remaining extent of 145 sq. yards was given as an oral gift by his father in the year 1967. Thus, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties referred to above as absolute owner. In the year 1968, a tiled house was said to have been constructed by the plaintiff with his own funds. As the said house became very old, the same was removed. The defendant was also living in the same village during the relevant time. The plaintiff, who became old, claims to have been living in Gollapudi in the house of her grand daughter. Due to the differences between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is alleged that the defendant illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property and started constructing a building. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff sent his grand daughter and GPA holder Suri Sarada, and her husband Suri Koteswara Rao to request the defendant not to raise illegal structures, but the same proved futile. Having regard to the above, the suit for declaration of title and possession came to be filed.

(3.) The claim of the defendant is that the said property fell to the share of his elder son. According to him, originally there was 700 sq. yards of site for the plaintiff and in the partition, 500 sq. yards fell to the share of defendant's elder son and 200 sq. yards was allotted to the defendant. In the said circumstances, it is pleaded that it is just and necessary to implead the elder son viz., Kalapala Narendra Babu so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the petitioner sought for making the consequential amendments as under: